Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Marcos
Table of Contents
Page
Rogelio Roxas and the Golden Buddha Corporation vs Ferdinand E. Marcos
3
Republic of the Philippines vs Maler Foundation
5
WestLB; Ferdinand R. Marcos vs Republic of the Philippines
13
Roger ROXAS and The Golden Budha Corporation, a foreign corporation, PlaintiffsAppellees/Cross-Appellants,
v.
Ferdinand E. MARCOS and Imelda Marcos, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
Supreme Court of Hawaii, 969 P.2d 1209 (1998)
Facts:
-
Defendant Appellant Imelda Marcos appeals from the decision of the first circuit court
which entered a judgement in favor of plaintiff Rogelio Roxas and the Golden Buddha
Corporation. The judgement ordered the Marcos Estate to pay damages in the amount of
$22,001,405,000.00
Roxas was a locksmith in Baguio City and an amateur coin collector and treasure hunter.
In 1961, he met Fuchugami who claimed that his father had a map identifying the
location of the legendary Yamashita Treasure which was owned by General Yamashita.
Eusebio Ocubo, claiming to be Yamashitas interpreter during World War 2, told Roxas of
a Golden Buddha Statue, which was kept at a convent near the tunnels. Roxas the
organized a group to search for the treasure,
7 months later, Roxas group broke through the tunnel which container World War 2
weapons and skeletons. There, he discovered a Golden Buddha (approximately 3 feet in
height) and a box containing gold bars. Various people tested the statue and found it to be
made of more than 20k Gold. The Statue had a removable head and inside, he found
several uncut Diamonds.
Roxas attempted twice to contact Judge Marcos to report his find but could not contact
him.
In 1971, at 2:30am, men purporting to be from the Criminal Investigation Group (CIS)
and National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) raided Roxas house claiming to have a
search warrant signed by Judge Marcos. They informed him that if he does not open his
door, he will be shot.
The men entered his house accompanied by Oihara, one of the prospective buyers of the
treasure. The men took the Buddha and all the treasures with them.
Roxas went to Judge Marcos and the judge told Roxas that he had no choice because
Ferdinand Marcos ordered the warrant to be issued.
Roxas Traveled to Cabanatuan city and had gone in hiding, he was offered 4 body guards
by the Provincial Governor. Later, the Marcoses offered Roxas 3 million pesos but he
refused.
During Trial, Roxas was presented a Buddha but testified that it was not the same. Later,
on May 18, 1971, he was captured and tortured by some men who told him to go by the
presidents offer.
After the Revolution in 1986, He filed claims against the Marcoses and assigned all his
rights to GBC, which his childhood friend, Felix Dacanay, incorporated.
Issue: Was the action for damages proper for the claim of Roxas against the estate of Marcos due
to the stolen treasure?
Held: Yes, However, the Amount for damages is reduced from $ 22 billion to $1.4 million. A new
trial is on the Value of the Golden Buddha should be commenced.
Ratio:
Imelda Argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the Jurys finding that the
Golden Buddha was converted and sold by Ferdinand
XXXXXXX
XXX
XXXXXXXX
Because the search warrant was never produced at trial, it is difficult to assess whether all
of the foregoing prerequisites were satisfied. However, the jury could reasonably have
inferred that the seizure of the golden buddha and other items was unlawful based on the
following evidence: (1) Roxas's testimony that Judge Pio Marcos had represented to him
that he, Judge Marcos, had issued the warrant on Ferdinand's personal order, rather than
on his own, independent analysis of the presence or absence of probable cause; (2)
Roxas's testimony that he had been coerced into identifying a false buddha that had been
placed in the custody of the clerk of court; and (3) the testimony of Jonsson and Curtis
that they had observed Ferdinand in possession of a golden buddha. These facts, taken as
true, support an inference that the raid on Roxas's home did not constitute a legitimate
governmental seizure of evidence, but was rather a wrongful appropriation of Roxas's
property orchestrated by Ferdinand himself. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in
denying Imelda's motion for a directed verdict, allowing the question to go to the jury,
and denying Imelda's motion for JNOV or for new trial.
There was sufficient evidence to support the jury's determination that Roxas "found" the
treasure pursuant to Philippine law.
To recover on its claim for conversion, plaintiff must prove that Roger Roxas had a right
under Philippine law to possess whatever treasure he found. In this regard you are
instructed that[,] under Philippine law[,] hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land
on which it is found. Nevertheless, when the discovery is made on the land of another, or
of the government, or any of its subdivisions, the finder is entitled to one-half of the
treasure so long as the discovery was by chance or by good luck. You are further
instructed that if the finder is a trespasser, he shall not be entitled to any share of the
treasure.
XXXXXXXX
XXX
XXXXXXXX
We hold that Roxas' deposition testimony contained sufficient evidence to support the
jury's finding that he "found" the treasure "by chance or by luck." Accordingly, there was
sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict concerning Ferdinand's liability for
conversion.
4
XXXXXXXX
XXX
XXXXXXXX
Since none of the witness could testify on the purity of the Gold, the Court made a
determination on the weight based on the size of the Golden Buddha and adjudged it to
be worth $1.3 million only.
policy of mutual judicial assistance in enforcing foreign confiscation orders, creates an exception
to the territoriality or lex situs rule.
XXXXXX
XXX
XXXXXX
As the Human Rights Victims seemed to be saying that the formulation of their claim to the
Funds did not involve any assertion that they had obtained proprietary rights to the Funds at the
time the Chinn Assignment was executed, then in the context of the present Interpleader
Proceedings, their claim would be seriously undermined. The only question that the court is
concerned with in an interpleader proceeding is the resolution of adverse claims to the res that
forms the subject matter of the interpleader, and the entitlement must be founded on a title or
proprietary interest: see the decision of this court in Tay Yok Swee v United Overseas Bank and
others [1994] 2 SLR(R) 36 at [12][15], followed in Thahir Kartika Ratna v PT Pertambangan
Minyak dan Gas Bumi Negara (Pertamina) [1994] 3 SLR(R) 312 at [14][16]; Singapore Civil
Procedure 2013 (Sweet & Maxwell Asia, 2013) at para 17/1/6. Interpleader proceedings are not
concerned with a relative in personam entitlement to property, or an oblique jus ad rem in the
form of a right relating to another persons right to the property.
While the Human Rights Victims chose to frame their cause of action based on a hierarchy of
relative entitlement to the Funds, we consider that the defining element of the claims of all the
parties to the Interpleader Proceedings is the question of title to property the correct
characterisation of the substance of the issue before this court is the effect of the Chinn
Assignment on the title to the Swiss Deposits at the time that the judicial assignment allegedly
took place, and this falls most appropriately within a proprietary rubric. The common law does
not recognise a distinction between a right of property as between the assignor and assignee and
a right of property as between the assignee and the rest of the world, and we consider that the
Human Rights Victims characterisation of the issue as one relating to the first-tier relationship is
hardly adequate. If the Human Rights Victims contention was that a different characterisation of
the proprietary issue ought to apply to the transfer of property in relation to the present matter as
only the assignor and assignee are involved in the appeals, we were not referred to any authority
that supported this proposition (see the rejection of a similar argument in Glencore International
AG v Metro Trading International Inc (formerly Metro Bunkering and Trading Co) (No 2) [2001]
CLC 1732 at [30]) and nor do we think that this is the correct characterisation of the issue before
us, which involves competing assertions of entitlement to property by parties other than the
assignor and assignee.
XXXXXX
XXX
XXXXXXX
PNB is the legal owner is premised on the simple fact that PNB was the named holder of the
accounts in which the Funds were deposited, and in the absence of any party who has
successfully asserted an entitlement to the Funds, the Funds should be returned to PNB as legal
owners, restoring the status quo prior to the commencement of the Interpleader Proceedings. In
other words, PNBs pre-existing legal title to the Funds arose prior to, and independently of, the
Forfeiture Judgment, and PNBs claim does not require this court to give effect to RA 1379. It is
as depositee.
declares that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
The proceeding is one against the owner, as well as against the goods; for it is his breach of the
laws which has to be proved to establish the forfeiture and his property is sought to be forfeited.
xxx xxx xxx
As already observed, the various constitutions provide that no person shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself. This prohibition against compelling a person to
take the stand as a witness against himself applies only to criminal, quasi-criminal, and penal
proceedings, including a proceeding civil in form for forfeiture of property by reason of the
commission of an offense, but not a proceeding in which the penalty recoverable is civil or
remedial in nature.
XXXXXX
XXX
XXXXXX
Forfeiture cases impose neither a personal criminal liability, nor the civil liability that arises from
the commission of a crime (ex delicto). The liability is based solely on a statute that safeguards
the right of the State to recover unlawfully acquired properties. Executive Order No. 14 (E.O.
No. 14), Defining the Jurisdiction Over Cases Involving the Ill-gotten Wealth of Former
President Ferdinand Marcos, authorizes the filing of forfeiture suits that will proceed
independently of any criminal proceedings. Section 3 of E.O. 14 empowered the PCGG to file
independent civil actions separate from the criminal actions.
XXXXXX
XXX
XXXXXXX
As forfeiture suits under R.A. 1379 are civil in nature, it follows that Rule 35 of the Rules of
Court on Summary Judgment may be applied to the present case. This is consistent with our
ruling in the Swiss Deposits Decision upholding the summary judgment rendered by the
Sandiganbayan over the Swiss deposits, which are subject of the same Petition for Forfeiture as
the Arelma assets.
XXX
XXXXXX
10
On the part of Mrs. Marcos, she claimed that the funds were lawfully acquired. However,
she failed to particularly state the ultimate facts surrounding the lawful manner or mode of
acquisition of the subject funds. Simply put, she merely stated in her answer with the other
respondents that the funds were lawfully acquired without detailing how exactly these funds
were supposedly acquired legally by them. Even in this case before us, her assertion that the
funds were lawfully acquired remains bare and unaccompanied by any factual support which can
prove, by the presentation of evidence at a hearing, that indeed the funds were acquired
legitimately by the Marcos family.
XXXXXX
XXX
XXXXXX
Here, despite the serious and specific allegations against them, the Marcoses responded by
simply saying that they had no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of such allegations. Such a general, self-serving claim of ignorance of the facts alleged in
the petition for forfeiture was insufficient to raise an issue. Respondent Marcoses should have
positively stated how it was that they were supposedly ignorant of the facts alleged
11
This is an appeal from a preliminary injunction case in favor of the republic of the
Philippines on May 2, 1986.
Five properties were involved in the case all located in New York city.
The appellants are the corporations holding title to the properties including defendants
Ferdiand E. Marcos and Imelda Marcos who are the beneficial owners of the properties.
The original complaint was filed on March 2, 1986 with the Supreme Court of the State
of New York
The complaint alleged that Ferdiand E Marcos now resides in Hawaii with Imelda and
allegedly doing business in New York thru his agents. It also alleged that Marcos was
involved in widespread and systematic theft of funds and properties belonging to the
republic.
The district court granted the relief prayed for and issued a preliminary injunction on
May 2, 1986
Issue: Whether or not the beneficiaries of the New York Properties are the Marcos family?
Held: Yes
Ratio:
Perhaps as significant pieces of evidence as any, however, were two documents
discovered in Manila in Malacanang Palace after the departure of the Marcoses. These
documents, which Bernstein authenticated before the Solarz Committee, were declarations of
trust executed by Bernstein on April 4 and April 5, 1982, at the direction of Gapud. The April 4
declaration set Bernstein up as a trustee for the benefit of President Ferdinand E. Marcos with
respect to all matters relating to Lastura Corporation; the April 5 declaration deleted Marcos's
name and inserted Beneficio Investment, Inc., a Panamanian corporation.
Bernstein stated that there did not seem to be any distinction as to ownership between any
of the four Manhattan properties. He thought the use of off-shore corporations and bearer shares
routine, for tax purposes; he initially had a power of attorney to act on behalf of the three
Panamanian corporations that owned Voloby and for a while held their shares of stock. Gapud,
according to Bernstein, represented "the principals," though no one ever mentioned names;
Bernstein's impression was that he represented the Marcos family. Moreover, early on, when
Mrs. Tantoco first took Bernstein to meet with Mrs. Marcos she referred to her as the "principal."
Bernstein also met in Geneva in March 1985 with Ron Zamora, a counsel to President Marcos,
who told him that "the principal" had decided to sell the four Manhattan properties. Bernstein
12
sought to have the first chance to buy them since the Bernsteins had been involved with the
properties for such a long time.
XXXXXX
XXX
XXXXXX
13
as a diplomatic agent and requesting diplomatic immunity on his behalf. Out of respect for the
foreign policy decisions of the Executive Branch, this Court finds that Ordonez is entitled to
diplomatic immunity.
15
XXX
17
XXXXXX
18
In Chuidian, we held that the FSIA covers a foreign official acting in an official capacity, but that
an official is not entitled to immunity for acts which are not committed in an official capacity
(such as selling personal property), and for acts beyond the scope of her authority (for example,
doing something the sovereign has not empowered the official to do). 912 F.2d at 1106. In
McKeel, in construing 1605(a) (5) of the FSIA, which waives immunity for damages against a
foreign state for injury occurring in the United States,9 we found that Congress intended the
FSIA to be consistent with international law--and that the prevailing practice in international law
is "that a state loses its sovereign immunity for tortious acts only where they occur in the
territory of the forum state." 722 F.2d at 588.
Marcos-Manotoc's default makes the application of both cases easy in this case, for she has
admitted acting on her own authority, not on the authority of the Republic of the Philippines.
Under these circumstances, her acts cannot have been taken within any official mandate and
therefore cannot have been acts of an agent or instrumentality of a foreign state within the
meaning of the FSIA. On any view, FSIA coverage under Chuidian is not triggered, and the
statutory limitation to injury occurring in the United States recognized in McKeel is not relevant.
As a matter of law, therefore, the district court did not err in failing to dismiss Marcos-Manotoc
in her individual capacity.
Absent jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, there is no dispute that the
only possible jurisdictional basis for Trajano's action is the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1350.
Section 1350 provides:
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only,
committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.
XXXXXX
XXX
XXXXXX
We believe, therefore, that Trajano's suit as an alien for the tort of wrongful death, committed by
military intelligence officials through torture prohibited by the law of nations, is within the
jurisdictional grant of 1350.
19
In the Matter of the Petition for the Issuance of The Writ of Habeas Corpus for Dr. Aurora
Parong, Norberto Portuguese, Sabino Padilla, Francis Divinagracia, Imelda De Los Santos,
Benjamin Pineda, Zenaida Mallari, Mariano Soriano, Tito Tanguilig, Letty Ballogan,
Bienvenida Garcia, Eufronio Ortiz, Juanito Granada and Tom Vasquez
V
Minister Juan Ponce Enrile, General Fabian Ver, General Fidel V. Ramos, and Lt. Col.
Miguel Coronel
GR L-61388, July 19, 1985
Facts:
- There was an application for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of fourteen
detainees wo were arrested from july 6, 1982 until July 15, 1982. The case was heard on
August 26, 1982.
- All the detainees, except Tom Vasquez, who was temporarily released, were being
detained pursuant to a presidential commitment order, LOI 1211 in relation to PP 2045
issued by President Ferdinand Marcos for violation of PD 885
- Out of the 14 arrested, 9 of them were identified to be members of the Communist party
of the Philippines engaging in subversive activities. At the place they were arrested, they
polic found 1 .38 cal revolver with 8 live bullets, 19 rounds of M16 ammunition, and
PHP 18, 650 believed to be CPP funds.
Issue: Whether the Presidential commitment order and the arrests of the 14 detainees were valid
during the time of Martial Law?
Held: Yes
Ratio:
The function of the PCO is to validate, on constitutional ground, the detention of a person for
any of the offenses covered by Proclamation No. 2045 which continues in force the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, if the arrest has been made initially without any
warrant, its legal effect is to render the writ unavailing as a means of judicially inquiring into the
legality of the detention in view of the suspension of the privilege of the writ. The grant of the
power to suspend the said privilege provides the basis for continuing with perfect legality the
detention as long as the invasion or rebellion has not been repelled or quelled, and the need
therefor in the interest of public safety continues.
The significance of the conferment of this power, constitutionally upon the President as
Commander-in-Chief, is that the exercise thereof is not subject to judicial inquiry, with a view to
determining its legality in the light of the bill of rights guarantee to individual freedom. This
must be so because the suspension of the privilege is a military measure the necessity of which
the President alone may determine as an incident of his grave responsibility as the Commanderin-Chief of the Armed Forces, of protecting not only public safety but the very life of the State,
20
the government and duly constituted authorities. This should be clear beyond doubt in the case of
"invasion," along which "rebellion" or "insurrection" is mentioned by the Constitution, which
contingency does not present a legal question on whether there is a violation of the right to
personal liberty when any member of the invading force is captured and detained.
XXXXXX
XXX
XXXXXX
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is one such measure. To be effective,
the occasion for its application on specific individuals should be left to the exclusive and sound
judgment of the President, at least while the exigencies of invasion, rebellion or insurrection
persist, and the public safety requires it, a matter, likewise, which should be left for the sole
determination of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Nation's armed forces. The need
for a unified command in such contingencies is imperative-even axiomatic-as a basic military
concept in the art of warfare.
XXXXXX
XXX
XXXXXX
In times of war or national emergency, the legislature may surrender a part of its power of
legislation to the President. 13 Would it not be as proper and wholly acceptable to lay down the
principle that during such crises, the judiciary should be less jealous of its power and more
trusting of the Executive in the exercise of its emergency powers in recognition of the same
necessity? Verily, the existence of the emergencies should be left to President's sole and
unfettered determination. His exercise of the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus on the occasion thereof, should also be beyond judicial review. Arbitrariness, as a ground
for judicial inquiry of presidential acts and decisions, sounds good in theory but impractical and
unrealistic, considering how well-nigh impossible it is for the courts to contradict the finding of
the President on the existence of the emergency that gives occasion for the exercise of the power
to suspend the privilege of the writ. For the Court to insist on reviewing Presidential action on
the ground of arbitrariness may only result in a violent collision of two jealous powers with
tragic consequences, by all means to be avoided, in favor of adhering to the more desirable and
long-tested doctrine of "political question" in reference to the power of judicial review. 14
Accordingly, We hold that in times of war and similar emergency as expressly provided in the
Constitution, the President may suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, which has the
effect of allowing the Executive to defer the prosecution of any of the offenses covered by
Proclamation No. 2045, including, as a necessary consequence, the withholding for the duration
of the suspension of the privilege, of the right to bail. The power could have been vested in
Congress, instead of the President, as it was so vested in the United States for which reason,
when President Lincoln himself exercised the power in 1861, Chief Justice Taney of the U.S.
Supreme Court expressed the opinion that Congress alone possessed this power under the
Constitutional., 15 Incidentally, it seems unimaginable that the judiciary could subject the
suspension, if decreed through congressional action, to the same inquiry as our Supreme Court
did with the act of the President, in the Lansang case, to determine if the Congress acted with
arbitrariness.
21
that a notice of lis pendens was registered with the Registry of Deeds. The sale, cancellation of
the accused title, and issuance of a new title to the buyer could not have been concealed from the
offended parties or their lawyers because these transactions took place when the civil case
involving the said property and the offended parties was in progress.
XXXXXX
XXX
XXXXXX
In the present case, it was well-nigh impossible for the State, the aggrieved party, to have
known the violations of R.A. No. 3019 at the time the questioned transactions were made
because, as alleged, the public officials concerned connived or conspired with the beneficiaries
of the loans. Thus, we agree with the COMMITTEE that the prescriptive period for the offenses
with which the respondents in OMB-0-96-0968 were charged should be computed from the
discovery of the commission thereof and not from the day of such commission.
The assertion by the OMBUDSMAN that the phrase if the same be not known in Section
2 of Act No. 3326 does not mean lack of knowledge but that the crime is not reasonably
knowable is unacceptable, as it provides an interpretation that defeats or negates the intent of the
law, which is written in a clear and unambiguous language and thus provides no room for
interpretation but only application.
XXXXXX
XXX
XXXXXX
The theory of the prosecution that the prescriptive period should not commence upon the
filing of Paredes application because no one could have known about it except Paredes and
Lands Inspector Luison, is not correct for, as the Sandiganbayan pointedly observed: it is not
only the Lands Inspector who passes upon the disposability of public land x x x other public
officials pass upon the application for a free patent including the location of the land and,
therefore, the disposable character thereof (p. 30, Rollo). Indeed, practically all the department
personnel, who had a hand in processing and approving the application, namely: (1) the lands
inspector who inspected the land to ascertain its location and occupancy; (2) the surveyor who
prepared its technical description; (3) the regional director who assessed the application and
determined the land classification; (4) the Director of Lands who prepared the free patent; and
(5) the Department Secretary who signed it, could... have helped discovering that the subject of
the application was non disposable public agricultural land.
There was no showing that Paredes had connived with all the department personnel, who
had a hand in processing and approving the application of Paredes. Consequently, such personnel
could have easily discovered the falsity in Paredes claim and denounced it. It would have been
entirely different if the public officials concerned conspired with him, in which case, they would
have hidden the misdeed to escape culpability.
23